Hey friends! Here's a beefy new piece of analysis for @renew_economy about @Matt_KeanMP's new 'energy infrastructure' plan for NSW

- It's weird / good / new that it has 'quad-partisan' support
- It's *probably* pretty ambitious, but we need more info

https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-renewables-plan-marks-a-major-new-moment-for-climate-action-in-australia-80628/

NSW has an *amazingly* coal heavy grid, but those coal-fired power stations aren't particularly new, and most will shut down over the next 2 decades. At its heart, this plan is simply laying out a clear replacement plan for these scheduled shutdowns.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-renewables-plan-marks-a-major-new-moment-for-climate-action-in-australia-80628/

As I've written at @renew_economy before, botching the process of dealing with the shutdown of coal = a recipe for total disaster. See: Scott Morrison literally threatening to build a gas power station as punishment??? That was in NSW.....

https://reneweconomy.com.au/morrison-casts-dark-shadow-over-energy-transition-with-massive-gas-intervention-22792/

So my next question was: exactly how much does this new policy reduce emissions, compared to a baseline? And is that amount ambitious?

I compare some of the data to AEMO's ISP, but in short, it's actually quite hard to figure out. https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-renewables-plan-marks-a-major-new-moment-for-climate-action-in-australia-80628/

The report bundled w/ the announcement says around 16 additional GW/yr of wind/solar/storage/dispatchable after 2030 ish, due to the policy. That's roughly the same as ISP's fast change vs worst case (slow change)........

https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-renewables-plan-marks-a-major-new-moment-for-climate-action-in-australia-80628/

This is where things get complicated: the AEMO ISP lower-emissions scenarios actually involve shutting down coal-fired power stations *earlier* than their scheduled closure dates, paired with ramping up RE roll-out. It make sense, right? You need to make room for clean energy.

Same deal for all of Aus' grids, as @climateactiontr recently published. near-zero by 2030 is compatible w/ 1.5C, and anything less = > climate harm. Except going by 'scheduled closure' only, there's still 7GW of coal online in NSW in 2030.

Here's the other thing: remember, it isn't *capacity* that creates greenhouse gas emissions, it's *generation*. Even if coal is sitting around at a relatively low capacity, it ends up contributing a higher proportion of generation. But that's not in the report.....

It's clear that NSW is banking on much of its near-term emissions reductions coming from the power sector. In fact, you only need power sector drops to get 30% by 2030 (NSW' target), by my reckoning, even in slower-transition scenarios

What about mining? Cars? Gas in homes?

Mining is a big one. The NSW government has been fighting to allow 'exported emissions' to be ignored in planning and approval processes. And in Feb, the Premier announced new gas mining projects. All this easily cancels out reductions in the grid. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/22/nsw-to-try-to-stop-mine-projects-being-blocked-because-of-their-overseas-emissions

So: still a lot of work to do to get where we need to be, and then hold that for decades - the rest of our lives really. Okay to celebrate a step in the right direction, but important to not forget the ones that are still ahead.

/end!